State v. Skiles
36,042
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Defendant was convicted in metropolitan court of first-offense DWI; district court affirmed on an on-record appeal.
- Incident: Defendant crashed into a parked vehicle, left the scene, and his vehicle was later found parked and blocked in.
- A witness to the driving arrived 10–15 minutes after the crash, observed slurred speech, strong alcohol odor, an empty vodka bottle, and that Defendant could barely stand.
- Defendant refused field sobriety tests three times; breath tests later registered .27 and .29 BAC.
- The maintenance worker who blocked Defendant’s vehicle called police; the witness took Defendant’s keys and license and relayed observations to officers before arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Defendant was intoxicated while driving | State: witness observations close in time to driving plus high BACs establish nexus between driving and intoxication | Skiles: gap between witnessed driving and intoxication evidence creates insufficient nexus (relying on Cotton) | Affirmed: short time frame, witness to driving, and signs of intoxication supported nexus and conviction |
| Probable cause for arrest | State: officer had information (smell, demeanor, witness account, blocked vehicle) to form objective belief DWI occurred | Skiles: challenges probable cause as tied to same nexus argument | Held: probable cause existed based on witness report, odor, balance, FST refusal, and BAC results |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Franklin, 428 P.2d 982 (N.M. 1967) (standard cited for review demands)
- State v. Boyer, 712 P.2d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985) (standards for appellate review cited)
- State v. Cotton, 263 P.3d 925 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (Court of Appeals decision on gaps between driving and intoxication evidence)
- State v. Sims, 236 P.3d 642 (N.M. 2010) (witness to driving near time of apprehension obviates need to show actual physical control)
- State v. Granillo-Macias, 176 P.3d 1187 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (probable cause exists where officer has sufficient facts and circumstances to believe DWI occurred)